Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32009976›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2019

Quantitative Comparison of the Performance of Piezoresistive, Piezoelectric, Acceleration, and Optical Pulse Wave Sensors.

Hongju Wang, Lu Wang, Nannan Sun, Yang Yao, Liling Hao, Lisheng Xu, Stephen E Greenwald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bite Force Transducers and Measurement Devices.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hongju WangCollege of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Lu WangSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Nannan SunCollege of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Yang YaoCollege of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Liling HaoCollege of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Lisheng XuCollege of Medicine and Biomedical Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Stephen E GreenwaldBlizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accurate measurement of the arterial pulse wave is beneficial to clinical health assessment and is important for the effective diagnosis of many types of cardiovascular disease. A variety of sensors have been developed for the non-invasive detection of these waves, but the type of sensor has an impact on the measurement results. Therefore, it is necessary to compare and analyze the signals obtained under a range of conditions using various pulse sensors to aid in making an informed choice of the appropriate type. From the available types we have selected four: a piezoresistive strain gauge sensor (PESG) and a piezoelectric Millar tonometer (the former with the ability to measure contact force), a circular film acceleration sensor, and an optical reflection sensor. Pulse wave signals were recorded from the left radial, carotid, femoral, and digital arteries of 60 subjects using these four sensors. Their performance was evaluated by analyzing their susceptibilities to external factors (contact force, measuring site, and ambient light intensity) and by comparing their stability and reproducibility. Under medium contact force, the peak-to-peak amplitude of the signals was higher than that at high and low force levels and the variability of signal waveform was small. The optical sensor was susceptible to ambient light. Analysis of the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the pulse wave parameters showed that the tonometer and accelerometer had good stability (ICC > 0.80), and the PESG and optical sensor had moderate stability (0.46 < ICC < 0.86). Intra-observer analysis showed that the tonometer and accelerometer had good reproducibility (ICC > 0.75) and the PESG and optical sensor had moderate reproducibility (0.42 < ICC < 0.91). Inter-observer analysis demonstrated that the accelerometer had good reproducibility (ICC > 0.85) and the three other sensors had moderate reproducibility (0.52 < ICC < 0.96). We conclude that the type of sensor and measurement site affect pulse wave characteristics and the careful selection of appropriate sensor and measurement site are required according to the research and clinical need. Moreover, the influence of external factors such as contact pressure and ambient light should be fully taken into account.

Indexed as

performancepulse wavequantitative analysisreproducibilitysensorstability

Identifiers

PMID32009976
PMCPMC6971205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.